Talk:Peter Pan (adaptations)

Merger

I would like to suggest that Peter Pan (sequels) be merged into this article (and probably rename it). The distinction is fairly arbitrary, especially in cases where the "adaptation" is something like a TV series that continues the story. For that matter, the play and the novel are themselves sequels to the character's original appearance in Little White Bird. Furthermore, there's relevant material that isn't necessarily a "adaptation" or a "sequel" but is still about Peter Pan's influence on later works (e.g. the Lost Boys vampire flick). I think a focus on "Peter Pan in other media" (covering everything that isn't A) "Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens" B) the novel "Peter and Wendy" or C) a straight stage production of "Peter Pan or the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up") would be a better focus for these two articles. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points but I happen not to agree. A sequel like PP in S is very different to the disney cartoon version of the original PP story. If theses two articles are not good enough then they should be improved, not combined. If you think some additional articles could make it better still then I suggest to be bold and create them.Obina (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I think there are already too many articles on the subject, arbitrarily scattering information here and there like a scavanger hunt. I'm not eager to make that any worse. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Obina that these articles should not be merged, for the reasons Obina mentioned.

On a related topic, you'll see that I'm not generally disagreeable... I replied to your merge comment on Talk:Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens too, and on that one I agreed to go along with the merge you want, even though it's not my preference for those articles to merge.

About the relations between the Peter Pan stories though, the "sequel" and "adaptations" questions are complex even within Barrie's writings. It is not correct to call the play and later novel sequels to the Peter Pan section of The Little White Bird. I've entered a comment about that on Talk:The Little White Bird that may be of interest to editors reading this page. --Linda 08:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The ambiguity between "sequel" and "adaptation" is one reason I'd like to merge these. For example, this page includes the movie Hook which is more of a sequel than an adaptation. Similarly, Peter Pan no Boken starts by adapting the story, then later episodes continue it with new characters. Would a clearer organizing principle be: non-JMB works featuring Peter Pan? - JasonAQuest (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Which is PP no Boken: adaptation or sequel? - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've changed my mind and now I do think a merged article on Peter Pan (sequels and adaptations) is the better approach, because there are so many versions that are a bit of each, and we'll probably find more of them.

My main concern about this is that the article could get very large. I recommend that each film or TV show or book have just a paragraph or two, and links to the main articles for them. Not like a disambiguation page with just a sentence, but mostly an overview article. Maybe with some kind of timeline table showing when the various versions were published and if they were sequels, prequels, adaptations or a combination of those. We could mention how each adaptation or sequel relates to the originals, but link to the the separate articles for detailed analysis. --Linda (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What about works featuring Peter Pan characters? That's more of a typical descriptive article title, and a nice objective criterion (including Barrie's works). Kind of like a "list" article, but with enough detail to be informative by itself, including a short section for each, identifying what media it's in, when it was made, what it's about, distinguishing actors when applicable, whether or not it's authorized by Barrie/GOSH, and so on. As you suggest, the in-depth information about each work would be in the main article (if notable enough to have one). - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Either title is OK with me. I think this combo version will be a good way to do it. Other ideas could be Works featuring the character Peter Pan, or Works based on Peter Pan, or Works based on the Peter Pan character. I still like Peter Pan (sequels and adaptations) too. I'm not sure which is best. --Linda (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Peter Pan (sequels and adaptations) is the use of parentheses: that's only supposed to be done when you have to disambiguate this topic from that topic, both with the same name. If these works were all called "Peter Pan" that'd be the way to do it here, but this article is about works with various names. It's a picky distinction, but Wikipedia depends on that kind of pickiness. :) I've been looking at how other big fictional topics name their associated articles, and some examples are:

• Tarzan in film and other non-print media
• Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland
• Star Wars sources and analogues
• James Bond film series
• Superman in popular culture

That doesn't offer a really clear example to follow, but some kind of phrase (hopefully brief) identifying the subject is what we're looking for. Another issue is that "sequels and adaptations" doesn't necessarily include prequels and spin-offs. I don't want to say "based on", because I think the original works should be listed here too, for completeness (and to avoid arguments over whether the play is a sequel to TLWB or the novel is an adaptation of the play). I also don't want to say just "featuring Peter Pan", because a movie about Tink or a book about Hook or a graphic novel about Wendy might not have Peter in it (or just a cameo), and those really ought to be included here. So that's how I arrived at Works featuring Peter Pan characters. I'm open to other phrasings, of course. -JasonAQuest (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

-->I think that the part of PP no Boken that retells the Barrie story is an adaptation. But this is a detail. I think it is very clear if something is an adaptation or not - does a work broadly retell the original story? Anyway, the main thing is to write great articles, not to be legalistic. I struggle to believe that creating one mega article will be better even if there is some over lap. The thing is, adaptations of the original story are very notable. There are 5 productions in the UK at this time for example plus a TV show coming up. This is very different to a new novel - Peter Pan in Scarlet. I hate to resort to the Pokeman argument, but if each pokeman can have a page, why not these two topics? The fact that these are related articles does not mean they are the same. (There is an overlap between a cookie and a cake, but that does not mean they are the same.) This new intro is well written, but it blurs the impact of the original tale. The original Peter Pan article (the one now about the novel and play) was made worse as it became a bucket for everything related to Peter Pan. It is better now that it is specific. If this article covers sequels and adaptations and characters, it may become the same. Why not leave this article on adaptations in peace, and improve the prequels and sequels article - it really does need some work? I think the intro you have written fits better on the sequels page. I know you now have agreement of one editor, but I really feel the need to edit out the part that you have added that is not about adaptations, but I have no desire to enter an edit war when you are really working hard to improve things.Obina (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most of the adaptations of the play are notable, but not all of them. And some of the sequels are very notable as well. That's a bad reason to split the list. The question isn't whether these two subtopics can have their own page, but if they need their own page. All of the notable adaptations/sequels/etc do (or will) have their own page, which is why some of the detail here won't be needed. But I promise: If an article that provides an overview of all the Peter Pan works gets too big, I'll support splitting it up. I don't think this is anywhere near that. - JasonAQuest (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Splitting is good when it makes articles better. Merging is good when it makes articles better. Umm, when I encourged all editors to improve the other article, I didn't mean to turn it into a list. This should be discussed on its talk page. Please be bold.Obina (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain how splitting the list makes it better. I don't see it. I think merging them would make it better by putting all the information in one place, so you don't have to know ahead of time whether a given production uses the plot from the original play, or just the characters and settings. For example, if I didn't know whether Return to Never Land was based on material from Barrie's book or not (the beginning is, the rest isn't), I wouldn't know which article it was covered by. And I really don't see why that kind of hair-splitting should be necessary. Obviously you disagree that having a single place for similar information is an advantage, but I haven't heard an explanation of how it's detrimental. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've executed a merger of the two articles as Works based on Peter Pan (the simplest formulation I could see). I used the by-media, by-date format of the adaptations article. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Knockoffs

In trying to find more info about the 1986 animated film found in IMDB, I've come across DVDs for sale online that apparently include several non-Disney animated films. They have different cover art, so I assume they're at least a few distinct productions. They're all impulse-purchase cheap, all-region DVDs, and under an hour to keep the cost of production down. The admittedly POV word that pops into my head is "knockoff". And now that the EU copyright is expiring too, we can probably expect more of them. The fact that they were unauthorized and maybe even unlawful isn't the issue, but I do think they fall into the category of non-notable. So I've removed the listing for the 1986 film and added a simple comment about the fact that these things exist. - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Peter Pan 2003 film.jpg

Image:Peter Pan 2003 film.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

More TV-series?

There is also a TV-series called Peter Pan and the Pirates, might wanna add that to the list. Also, what's "Peter Pan no boken" doing in the film section? Isn't that a TV-series?--Mithcoriel (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call on the placement of Peter Pan no Boken. Peter Pan and the Pirates was listed on Peter Pan (sequels), and this confusion gives me the nudge to move forward on the previously-discussed merger of the two articles into Works based on Peter Pan. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)